Political Science

In 1987, Felix manufactured methamphetamine at a facility in Oklahoma. Manufacture of methamphetamine was a violation of the federal statutes. The facility was later shut down by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. This prompted Felix to order for a delivery of chemicals and equipments in Missouri from George Dwinnels, a DEA informant. Felix paid the first installment of 7500 and he instructed Dwinnels to deliver the merchandise to a Joplin, Missouri hotel. Dwinnels and Felix later met at the hotel and the merchandise was delivered to him but just before he transferred the chemicals to his car, government officials arrested him. In his defense, he argued that he had no criminal intention but he was acting under the mistaken belief that he was working for a covert DEA operation (FindLaw, 2009).

The federal government produced evidence that he was previously involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine in Oklahoma. Also, past evidence indicated that Felix had purchased precursor materials from Dwinnels which he later sold to Paul Roach in exchange for lessons on how to manufacture methamphetamine. This was used as a means to determine the extent of his criminal intention which consequently led to his conviction. The Oklahoma transactions were found to be admissible in showing Felixs state of mind with respect to the chemicals and the equipments.

Felix was named in 8 counts of an 11 count indictment. In the first count, Felix and five other accomplices were charged with the conspiracy to manufacture, possess and distribute methamphetamine. Felix had his name in nine overt acts that supported the conspiracy charge. Overt act 17 charged Felix with providing money for the purchase of equipment to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine while at Oklahoma. Overt act 18 charged him with the possession of chemicals and equipments which were necessary for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Count 2-5 alleged that he had manufactured methamphetamine with the intention to distribute .Count 6 charged him and a co-defendant with maintaining a methamphetamine manufacturing lab (Onecle, 2009). Felix was also charged for traveling from Texas to the Eastern District of Oklahoma with the intention of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine. He was convicted for all the crimes which he was charged with.

For count 1, the government proved that Felix had learnt how to make methamphetamine and had actually manufactured methamphetamine while at Oklahoma. The federal government also proved that Felix had sought to buy more chemicals and equipments after the raid in his Oklahoma facility.

Relevance of the double jeopardy clause
However, the courts of appeal reversed the conviction on count 1-6 of the Oklahoma indictment. This was after relying on the facts as presented in the case of Grady v.Corbin. The case of Grady v. Corbin relied on the Double Jeopardy clause. The double jeopardy clause protects one from three different forms of abuses.  It protects one from being tried twice for the same offence after acquittal protects one from a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and it does protect one from multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case, the government needs to prove that the conduct of Felix constitute an offense (Shestokas, 2008). The courts of appeal held that there was duplication of conduct which is barred by the double jeopardy clause.

For the substantive cases in the count 2-6, the court had direct evidence supporting the charges. The evidence was that Felix had purchased the chemicals and equipments which he subsequently used in the manufacture of methamphetamine in Oklahoma. This was the same evidence that had been produced during the Missouri trial. The court held that they were subjecting Felix to multiple trials for the same conduct. Thus the convictions on counts 2-6 were also reversed.

However, many felt that the double jeopardy clause did not bar the prosecution of Felix for these crimes. They first considered whether the Double jeopardy clause was applicable in the Oklahoma indictment for counts 2-6. For these counts the court of appeals argued that the government was foreclosed because it had produced the same evidence for both the Missouri and Oklahoma case (Shestokas, 2008). The critics feel that the crimes that Felix was charged for while at Oklahoma are related to the operations of the methamphetamine lab near Beggs but the crimes in Missouri are related to the purchase of chemicals and equipments from Dwinnels.

They claim that the two crimes are different in both time and place thus there is no common link between the two crimes. The critics feel that the court of appeal focused more on the actual crimes committed instead of the evidence presented by the government in the two trails. In addition, they cite that Felix was only charged with the attempt offense and the courts failed to acknowledge the amount of evidence produced in a bid to show the state of mind of Felix.

The critics hold that the double jeopardy clause is not applicable in the substance drug offenses and the conspiracy charge. They believed that a mere overlap of proof does not amount to the double jeopardy clause. The conclusion was that the court of appeal had actually erred by relying on the facts as presented in the case of Grady v. Corbin. The case of Grady should not have been used in analyzing persecutions of multilayered conduct. It is much useful in case arising from single course of conduct (FindLaw, 2009). They felt that it was extravagant to rely on the case of Grady rather they should have relied on the decision made in Dowling v. United States.

In Dowling v. United States, Dowling had been charged with bank robbery. To identify him, the government used the Federal Rule of Evidence. The state used Vena Henry who testified that she had been a victim of robbery where the robber had worn a knitted mask. Vena was to testify that she was actually able to identify the robber as Dowling after unmasking him after a struggle. Despite the fact that Dowling had earlier been acquitted of the bank robbery charges, the critics do uphold with the introduction of Henry in this case. Thus, the Double Jeopardy clause did not guarantee Dowling protection from double prosecution (Onecle, 2009).
Therefore, they conclude that the government did not prosecute Felix for the Oklahoma transactions but they only introduced the transactions as prior acts of evidence. They feel that the government should prosecute Felix for the counts 2 through 6 and they express their opinion that the courts of appeal had actually erred by relying on the double Jeopardy Clause.